Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- An American soldier left his base in Afghanistan and went from house to house in two villages, killing 16 people in their homes, a provincial official told CNN Sunday.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force confirmed that a soldier had gone off base and fired on civilians before turning himself in, but did not say how many victims there had been.

There has been confusion about the number of casualties since the shooting in Kandahar province, eastern Afghanistan, with different sources offering different numbers.

Regardless of the number of victims, the incident looks likely to inflame tensions still further between foreign troops and Afghan civilians, many of whom were enraged by the burning of Qurans by American troops last month.

Bring them all home tomorrow, anyone can crack under their rules of engagement.

Bailey

03-11-2012, 12:12 PM

I'd just say he was taken out future insurgents.

Odysseus

03-11-2012, 12:33 PM

Assuming that the allegations are true (not a given, after Haditha), this is an atrocity, and must be prosecuted to the full extent of the UCMJ. Don't make excuses for it, just let it play out.

Rockntractor

03-11-2012, 01:02 PM

Assuming that the allegations are true (not a given, after Haditha), this is an atrocity, and must be prosecuted to the full extent of the UCMJ. Don't make excuses for it, just let it play out.

Of course you are right, it gets old when day after day we hear a report of another Afghani turning on the soldiers that trained them and killing them, you get desensitized toward them after awhile.

TooManyChiefs

03-12-2012, 02:06 AM

Well I'm sure the Afghani's burned some book he liked a lot, that gave him total permission to go on a killing spree if they are going to be that culturally insensitive.

Odysseus

03-12-2012, 03:04 AM

Well I'm sure the Afghani's burned some book he liked a lot, that gave him total permission to go on a killing spree if they are going to be that culturally insensitive.

Maybe they did, but even if it was his mint copy of Action Comics #1, the UCMJ takes a dim view of killing non-combatants.

We aren't terrorist lowlives who kill women and children with impunity, and when one of us crosses the line, we need to make sure that he is brought to justice and the line remains. I don't have a problem punishing one of our own for crossing that line. The thing that we're getting sick of is that our enemy doesn't even see the line, and we do nothing about it.

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- The Afghan Taliban said Monday that the group's fighters would exact revenge for 16 people left dead after an American soldier went on a house-to-house shooting rampage a day earlier in two villages.

Describing U.S. forces as "sick-minded American savages," the Taliban said in a website statement that the group would mete out punishment for the "barbaric actions."

U.S. officials have expressed shock and sadness over the attack. Afghan leaders have angrily condemned it. President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan called it an "unforgivable" crime, noting that nine of the dead were children.

The killings have fueled fears of intensified ire directed at international forces in the country following deadly riots last month over the burning of Qurans by U.S. troops.

noonwitch

03-12-2012, 10:07 AM

Maybe they did, but even if it was his mint copy of Action Comics #1, the UCMJ takes a dim view of killing non-combatants.

We aren't terrorist lowlives who kill women and children with impunity, and when one of us crosses the line, we need to make sure that he is brought to justice and the line remains. I don't have a problem punishing one of our own for crossing that line. The thing that we're getting sick of is that our enemy doesn't even see the line, and we do nothing about it.

It's bad and I'm glad that they got the guy responsible, but it's still you guys who are actively serving who are going to ultimately pay for this guy's actions. Time to bring you all home.

AmPat

03-12-2012, 11:46 AM

Not good. My unit that I just retired from is over there. I know over four hundred of those Soldiers and this doesn't bode well for them.

Janice

03-12-2012, 12:25 PM

This sort of makes me think how it used to be for the news services and how it is today. The NYTimes (the paper of record?) was deign to cover Hitlers atrocities against the jews. Even though the paper is owned by a jew. Only later and reluctantly at best was some of it covered/ uncovered as it were.

Today the news wires/ services including CNN try to obscure any atrocities by Americas enemies while at the same time trying to deliberately mis-characterize even so much as an American serviceman or woman stubbing their toe to be some sort of atrocity against human decency. All this with the tacit approval of our own government. In fact is goes further. Its encouraged. Our own military is often characterized or compared by congressmen as behaving like nazis. Not only congressmen but a former senator who is now president too.

This case probably doesnt fall into this subset. But it just made me think. And as I understand it, the rules of engagement for our forces have been changed by these patriots in our congress so that now our forces must be fired upon FIRST before they can take action. So if I understand this right, our heros must watch their friends be killed (in some or many cases) before they can even engage the enemy. I wonder how many times you have to watch that happen before your eyes before something breaks down in your pyche.

Anyways as I said before, this particular incident reported by CNN does sound like an atrocity. It just made me think, thats all.

Novaheart

03-12-2012, 12:40 PM

Maybe they did, but even if it was his mint copy of Action Comics #1, the UCMJ takes a dim view of killing non-combatants.

We have handled this all wrong from the start. The US response to the attack on New York and DC should have been swift, terrifying, and indiscriminate. Make it clear not to the Taliban (because they are crazy anyway) but to the Muslims of the world that every single act of terrorism against the Civilized Nations will result in a surgical strike on a sacred site, preferably one with tens of thousands of people in it.

Wei Wu Wei

03-12-2012, 01:15 PM

How many civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Novaheart

03-12-2012, 01:18 PM

How many civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Millions, doubtlessly. Would you like to narrow that by a timeframe or circumstance?

Lanie

03-12-2012, 01:21 PM

Assuming that the allegations are true (not a given, after Haditha), this is an atrocity, and must be prosecuted to the full extent of the UCMJ. Don't make excuses for it, just let it play out.

After the last two comments, I wanted to say thank you to that.

I do think that an investigation should be done. Just just hang the guy. Don't take advice from the Taliban or any other
murdering group of people about it.

Lanie

03-12-2012, 01:24 PM

Maybe they did, but even if it was his mint copy of Action Comics #1, the UCMJ takes a dim view of killing non-combatants.

We aren't terrorist lowlives who kill women and children with impunity, and when one of us crosses the line, we need to make sure that he is brought to justice and the line remains. I don't have a problem punishing one of our own for crossing that line. The thing that we're getting sick of is that our enemy doesn't even see the line, and we do nothing about it.

True, and it upsets me that Joe Biden actually said that the Taliban were not our enemy. They're an enemy of the United States. They're an enemy to women, and we have women here.

1) Insurgents in their own country, which we try to protect them from.

2) Civilian casualties in war, ACCIDENT. Tragic, but accidental.

3) The rare occurances of murdering civilians.

That's the major difference between our country's government and theirs. If our men and women murder civilians, we punish them.
If their men murder civilians, they'll justify it and/or cover it up. Syrian government just flat out murders on a daily basis. That's the major difference here.

Wei Wu Wei

03-12-2012, 01:43 PM

Millions, doubtlessly. Would you like to narrow that by a timeframe or circumstance?

How many civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq as a direct or indirect result of military engagements since 2001 and 2003 respectively?

Wei Wu Wei

03-12-2012, 01:45 PM

Thing is civilians die from the following:

1) Insurgents in their own country, which we try to protect them from.

2) Civilian casualties in war, ACCIDENT. Tragic, but accidental.

3) The rare occurances of murdering civilians.

Does this also apply in our wars with Japan and Vietnam?

Odysseus

03-12-2012, 02:51 PM

It's bad and I'm glad that they got the guy responsible, but it's still you guys who are actively serving who are going to ultimately pay for this guy's actions. Time to bring you all home.

The left has been clamoring to bring us home from the moment we go there, so you'll pardon me if I remain a bit skeptical. The fact is that we have a legitimate mission there, which is to prevent a repeat of 9/11. Negotiating with the people who harbored the perpetrators of 9/11 doesn't really work as part of that mission, but defeating them completely and destroying their capacity to function does.

Nation-building is a multi-generational project, and we clearly don't have the stomach for it anymore. Therefore, our mission needs to be one that can be accomplished with less long term commitment. From here on in, when someone acts against the US, our policy needs to be that we will hunt them down and kill them, regardless of where they hide, and any nation that harbors them is subject to the full wrath of our reprisals. That wouldn't mean boots on the ground, necessarily, but in the case of Afghanistan, we should have gone in, wiped the floor with the Afghan Taliban and put their enemies in charge, then left them the means to run the place with as much brutality as required. In the case of Pakistan, at the very least, it should have entailed a cutoff of aid. Saddam should have been overthrown, as we did, and replaced by the Kurds, who understand the value of loyalty and are not afraid to fight.

Not good. My unit that I just retired from is over there. I know over four hundred of those Soldiers and this doesn't bode well for them.

Agreed. We've gone from a war almost won to an ignominious retreat. Thanks, Obama.

AmPat

03-12-2012, 02:57 PM

The left has been clamoring to bring us home from the moment we go there, so you'll pardon me if I remain a bit skeptical. The fact is that we have a legitimate mission there, which is to prevent a repeat of 9/11. Negotiating with the people who harbored the perpetrators of 9/11 doesn't really work as part of that mission, but defeating them completely and destroying their capacity to function does............................snip.............. .
Agreed. We've gone from a war almost won to an ignominious retreat. Thanks, Obama.

All known leftist/DimoRAT traits widely known prior to every election. Yet, the American voting public continues to vote for these leftist, anti-American morons.
:livid:

Novaheart

03-12-2012, 06:05 PM

How many civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq as a direct or indirect result of military engagements since 2001 and 2003 respectively?

The Moors are a scourge upon humanity. Smite them.

Lanie

03-12-2012, 08:20 PM

Does this also apply in our wars with Japan and Vietnam?

We had some purposeful civilian casualties in Vietnam, which got exploited to supposedly represent the majority of civilian casualties.

We dropped an atomic bomb on Japan. I don't believe that was necessary. It's been argued that they were on the verge of surrendering. Furthermore, they still wouldn't surrender until the emperer gave the okay and we passively allowed him to stay. It didn't last forever, but we passively allowed the emperor to stay. Had we agreed to that before, they would have surrendered sooner.

And in any case, we're talking about Afghanistan.

STOP BEING AN ASSSSSHOOLLLLLLEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

It's not just you. I'm just taking it all out on you.

Chuck58

03-12-2012, 08:49 PM

The Moors are a scourge upon humanity. Smite them.

Finally, you make some sense.

Kay

03-12-2012, 11:11 PM

From here on in, when someone acts against the US, our policy needs to be that we will hunt them down and kill them, regardless of where they hide, and any nation that harbors them is subject to the full wrath of our reprisals. That wouldn't mean boots on the ground, necessarily, but in the case of Afghanistan, we should have gone in, wiped the floor with the Afghan Taliban and put their enemies in charge, then left them the means to run the place with as much brutality as required.

That is the only way a war should ever be waged to begin with.
The best policy is to follow the Genghis Kahn Method of Warfare.
No child left behind. If it finally comes to war, then it should be
waged all out to win by crushing and conquering fast and hard.
The hearts and minds can either follow along or perish.

They keep showing this one news clip of a woman talking about
a 2 year old child that was killed. She says "I've never seen a
Taliban that was 2 years old .... I recall pictures of little Talies
with bombs strapped to them in their parents arms.

noonwitch

03-13-2012, 03:29 PM

They keep showing this one news clip of a woman talking about
a 2 year old child that was killed. She says "I've never seen a
Taliban that was 2 years old .... I recall pictures of little Talies
with bombs strapped to them in their parents arms.

C'mon, Kay, does the 2 year old really have a choice in whether his parents strap a bomb to him or not? Most 2 year olds are busy mastering potty training and developing a functional vocabulary.

I don't challenge you on the muslim stuff, usually, but a 2 year old is a baby.

AmPat

03-13-2012, 03:36 PM

C'mon, Kay, does the 2 year old really have a choice in whether his parents strap a bomb to him or not? Most 2 year olds are busy mastering potty training and developing a functional vocabulary.

I don't challenge you on the muslim stuff, usually, but a 2 year old is a baby.

Does this make them little more than "clumps of cells?" If so, I'd think liberals would have no problem with a 7.62 abortion.

Lanie

03-13-2012, 04:54 PM

Does this make them little more than "clumps of cells?" If so, I'd think liberals would have no problem with a 7.62 abortion.

Would you favor abortion for the Muslims only?

Odysseus

03-13-2012, 05:13 PM

How many civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq as a direct or indirect result of military engagements since 2001 and 2003 respectively?
As a direct result? Very few. We take great pains to restrict civilian casualties, and often expose ourselves to risk in order to protect them. Indirectly? That's problematical, because if you buy into the antiwar rhetoric (and we know that you do), then any casualty is a result of our being there, rather than enemy action. If a terrorist straps a bomb on and walks into a crowd of children in order to kill the American who is giving out school supplies, the antiwar activist blames the American for the deaths of the children.

Does this also apply in our wars with Japan and Vietnam?
We always try to avoid civilian casualties, and when they occur as a result of deliberate actions, we prosecute our own people for war crimes. *Our enemies not only do not prosecute their own personnel for war crimes, they reward them. The vast majority of civilian casualties in Vietnam were the result of deliberate acts by the NVA and Viet Cong, both of which targeted civilian leaders as a matter of policy in order to undermine the government of South Vietnam. The mass murder of public employees and professionals in Hue City by the NVA during the Tet Offensive is a well-documented example of this. During WWII, the Japanese and Germans indulged in total warfare and deliberately targeted civilians. The bombing of cities by the Luftwaffe was meant to jam road networks and prevent rapid maneuvers against their forces. The Japanese record regarding civilian deaths rivals the Germans for sheer brutality and sadism, although they lacked the technical sophistication that the Germans brought to mass murder. Both nations also made it a point to put munitions plants and other critical war infrastructure in civilian areas, which maximized civilian casualties. That's not to say that were were incapable of brutality, but war is a brutal business, and our victories meant that the brutality was ended, while if the Germans or Japanese were to win, it would have been perpetuated, as it was when the North won the Vietnam War. Remember that more Vietnamese died in the first two years after the war ended than did during the entire war.

C'mon, Kay, does the 2 year old really have a choice in whether his parents strap a bomb to him or not? Most 2 year olds are busy mastering potty training and developing a functional vocabulary.

I don't challenge you on the muslim stuff, usually, but a 2 year old is a baby.

The 2-year-old that has been weaponized is innocent, but that doesn't change the fact that his/her parents turned the child into a munition. People who do that deserve their own circle in Hell.

Hawkgirl

03-13-2012, 06:45 PM

The 2-year-old that has been weaponized is innocent, but that doesn't change the fact that his/her parents turned the child into a munition. People who do that deserve their own circle in Hell.

Not only that, but it just illustrates their resolve with Islam. They are willing to sacrifice their own child, brutally, for the cause. That is what we are dealing with, and that is why we are there.

Kay

03-13-2012, 08:42 PM

C'mon, Kay, does the 2 year old really have a choice in whether his parents strap a bomb to him or not? Most 2 year olds are busy mastering potty training and developing a functional vocabulary.

I don't challenge you on the muslim stuff, usually, but a 2 year old is a baby.

Nooner, you missed my point. If you watched the news clip I was referring to,
my point is that I'm sick and tired of the double standard when it comes to the
outrage directed only at American Soldiers while that woman's own people get
a pass for doing much worse to their own kids.

Not only that, but it just illustrates their resolve with Islam. They are willing to sacrifice their own child, brutally, for the cause. That is what we are dealing with, and that is why we are there.

Yes that is what I was getting at. These people think nothing of strapping
a bomb to their own kid, and express more outrage and riot over a book
being burned than they do blowing up their own kids. So I have just a bit
of a hard time feeling much sympathy for the woman in the news clip.

AmPat

03-13-2012, 09:24 PM

Would you favor abortion for the Muslims only?
Where do you get that? I don't "favor" abortion at all.

Liberals can't understand why someone wouldn't jump at the opportunity to abort a child.Reading comprehension isn't their strong suit. 7 years on this site and thousands of posts and she is dense enough to ask a question like that of me.:rolleyes:

Lanie

03-15-2012, 05:12 PM

Where do you get that? I don't "favor" abortion at all.

It sounded like you were supporting abortion after birth just because somebody's a Muslim. Why not before?

And Rock, don't be such a jerk. I'm not supporting abortion. I'm playing with Ampat's head. Truth is I do think it's weird how people here don't support abortion, but yet they'll verbally support the idea of killing people for being Muslim. Either murder is wrong or it isn't wrong.

Originally Posted by noonwitchhttp://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/redfox/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=490267#post490267)C'mon, Kay, does the 2 year old really have a choice in whether his parents strap a bomb to him or not? Most 2 year olds are busy mastering potty training and developing a functional vocabulary.
I don't challenge you on the muslim stuff, usually, but a 2 year old is a baby.

My Response:

Does this make them little more than "clumps of cells?" If so, I'd think liberals would have no problem with a 7.62 abortion.I realize you must understand, comprehend, and synthesize two different concepts, so let me help. Liberals are ok with killing a baby because they label it "fetus and clumps of cells." Somehow that helps excuse the horrid practice of scrambliong their own babies. Nooner said the kids were 2 years old and babies. This was a tongue-in-cheek response, something that requires a fair amount of humor to appreciate. You're liberal, I forgive you this deficit.

Would you favor abortion for the Muslims only?

Point!
___________

Lanie's Head

noonwitch

03-16-2012, 12:52 PM

The soldier's lawyer was on the Today show this morning. This guy had half his foot blown off and suffered a brain injury in previous combat.

It sounds like he's got a decent lawyer, who is looking out for his rights. I hope at some point, someone does a complete neurological workup on him. There are rumors that the guy had marital problems and a substance abuse problem, both of which his lawyer denies. If he didn't have any problems in his home life, and hadn't shown any signs of instability before, there could be something going on literally in his head.

If they don't find something medically wrong with him, he is probably going to get the death penalty.

Rockntractor

03-16-2012, 01:03 PM

The soldier's lawyer was on the Today show this morning. This guy had half his foot blown off and suffered a brain injury in previous combat.

It sounds like he's got a decent lawyer, who is looking out for his rights. I hope at some point, someone does a complete neurological workup on him. There are rumors that the guy had marital problems and a substance abuse problem, both of which his lawyer denies. If he didn't have any problems in his home life, and hadn't shown any signs of instability before, there could be something going on literally in his head.

If they don't find something medically wrong with him, he is probably going to get the death penalty.

Are they asking for the death penalty where 14 were killed in Fort Hood while the gunman shouted Allah Akbar, you know "the workplace incident"?

I'll never forget the rain of apologies from the Islamic community after that one!

noonwitch

03-16-2012, 02:28 PM

Are they asking for the death penalty where 14 were killed in Fort Hood while the gunman shouted Allah Akbar, you know "the workplace incident"?

I'll never forget the rain of apologies from the Islamic community after that one!

I'm always against the DP. I'm particularly against it when:

1. Someone is being singled out over similar offenders so that they can make an example out of him

and/or

2. There is some real mitigating circumstance behind his crime, like a medical condition.

It's looking like this guy fits both criteria to get some sympathy from me.

AmPat

03-16-2012, 03:46 PM

I'm always against the DP. I'm particularly against it when:

1. Someone is being singled out over similar offenders so that they can make an example out of him

and/or
If that offender tortured your family to death in front of you. The raped and murdered your family over days while you watched just to increase your horror, would that be reason enough to make an example out of him?

2. There is some real mitigating circumstance behind his crime, like a medical condition.

It's looking like this guy fits both criteria to get some sympathy from me.

What if he is high functioning and that condition were a real and present danger, AND he knew what he had done was wrong?

I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you are on this DP issue.

Odysseus

03-16-2012, 04:08 PM

Are they asking for the death penalty where 14 were killed in Fort Hood while the gunman shouted Allah Akbar, you know "the workplace incident"?

I'll never forget the rain of apologies from the Islamic community after that one!

Nidal Hasan should have been charged with treason, as well as multiple counts of murder. Both are capital crimes under the UCMJ.

I'm always against the DP. I'm particularly against it when:

1. Someone is being singled out over similar offenders so that they can make an example out of him

and/or

2. There is some real mitigating circumstance behind his crime, like a medical condition.

It's looking like this guy fits both criteria to get some sympathy from me.

Mitigation will be taken into account when he goes to trial. It's part of the sentencing hearing, as is a unique aspect of the UCMJ. If it turns out that he was suffering from the effects of TBI, he will most likely get a reduced sentence, but regardless, his actions have truly screwed us in Afghanistan.

The Pashtun believe in a code called "Pashtunwali", which has a number of critical principles, one of which is "Badal", which is usually translated as justice or revenge. Literally, it means "To seek justice or take revenge against the wrongdoer." Justice in Pashtunwali extends to things that we might find trivial, such as an insult, which would demand redress through the shedding of the blood of the person making the insult or, in his absence, his closest male relation. Needless to say, this incident meets the definition of a blood feud, and Pashtun blood feuds make the Capulets and the Montagues look like a love fest. There are kids who haven't even been born who will someday take up blood feuds that started when Alexander crossed into India. The only way to satisfy this kind of blood feud is to either wipe out the tribe, give them the offender or pay them off, if they will accept a payoff.

SarasotaRepub

03-16-2012, 07:31 PM

Military sources identify the suspect in the shooting deaths of 16 Afghan
civilians as Staff Sgt. Robert Bales. --- CNN

txradioguy

03-19-2012, 08:33 AM

Military sources identify the suspect in the shooting deaths of 16 Afghan
civilians as Staff Sgt. Robert Bales. --- CNN

Thankfully the Army has done the right thing and moved his family on post before the media vultures could work their "magic" on her and the family.

Odysseus

03-19-2012, 11:08 AM

Thankfully the Army has done the right thing and moved his family on post before the media vultures could work their "magic" on her and the family.

Or, worse, before a jihadi could settle the blood debt. That family is a target, now. They should have round-the-clock protection.

txradioguy

03-19-2012, 01:13 PM

Or, worse, before a jihadi could settle the blood debt. That family is a target, now. They should have round-the-clock protection.

I sure hope that is being done

AmPat

03-19-2012, 02:00 PM

Or, worse, before a jihadi could settle the blood debt. That family is a target, now. They should have round-the-clock protection.

Maybe like me they have their own round the clock protection. The police are for filling out the paperwork after a crime. I opt to do the protecting in the present and allow the police to clean up the mess after me.

Odysseus

03-19-2012, 03:59 PM

I sure hope that is being done

Maybe like me they have their own round the clock protection. The police are for filling out the paperwork after a crime. I opt to do the protecting in the present and allow the police to clean up the mess after me.

If they are on the post, they probably are not permitted to carry weapons, and given the circumstances, any guns that they had and that were registered with the Provost Marshall were probably taken. However, the post commander ought to raise the threat level and ensure that there are MPs or federal police guarding the family, especially since the media was kind enough to inform every jihadi within CONUS as to their approximate location.

AmPat

03-19-2012, 07:23 PM

If they are on the post, they probably are not permitted to carry weapons, and given the circumstances, any guns that they had and that were registered with the Provost Marshall were probably taken. However, the post commander ought to raise the threat level and ensure that there are MPs or federal police guarding the family, especially since the media was kind enough to inform every jihadi within CONUS as to their approximate location.

Roger, I'm tracking. I know that the regs changed for off post guns. They did not have to register them if off post. As for on post, I guess it's better than nothing. I'd still take my chances off post with my own firepower.

Odysseus

03-19-2012, 10:41 PM

Roger, I'm tracking. I know that the regs changed for off post guns. They did not have to register them if off post. As for on post, I guess it's better than nothing. I'd still take my chances off post with my own firepower.

Yes, but if they are on post, then they don't have their own firepower. The Provost Marshall needs to have round the clock protective details on them. They are a huge target.

DumbAss Tanker

03-20-2012, 12:15 PM

Yes, but if they are on post, then they don't have their own firepower. The Provost Marshall needs to have round the clock protective details on them. They are a huge target.

The Army leadership loves them some control, a whole lot more than it does results or individual liberty. Which can become a problem if you have a personal stake in the results, or the individual liberty concerned.

Wei Wu Wei

03-20-2012, 09:04 PM

I don't understand why people are treating this like the crime of the decade, a horrible shocking display that is impossible to understand, but no one seems to consider the effects of the war itself.

Civilians are being killed all the time in these wars. Suddenly it's horrifying because a soldier killed some without the proper permission?

Of course most civilian deaths are simply brushed off because they are "collateral damage" in an otherwise "legitimate operation". Do the Afghans care? If a dozen women and children are killed in 'collateral damage' during a strike, do the Afghans think that's totally cool because the foreign occupying military was looking for a bad guy? Come on. When a bomb drops and kills an innocent family, the survivors aren't going to just smile and say "I understand, there were rumors that an insurgent was here". They're more likely to become insurgents themselves.

Why is occupying a foreign country and causing thousands of civilians deaths A-Okay, until some guy decides to go renegade and stop the evil Muslims without clearance? It's a ridiculous mindset that deaths are nothing to think twice about, as long as you follow the "rules" while you do it.

Something is seriously wrong when a person is willing to take the firmest possible stand against murder, but War is acceptable.

As for the idea that this soldier may have had psychological problems? No shit sherlock. How can you have a decade of continuous war with some people on multiple redeployments without psychological problems. At that point it's not even abnormal psychology it's expected psychology. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote “It is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98 percent of all men insane, and the other 2 percent were crazy when they go there.”

Wei Wu Wei

03-20-2012, 09:08 PM

I found that quote from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in an article by Chris Hedges on this killing rampage. Hedges is a journalist who has been in many warzones.

-snip-
War perverts and destroys you. It pushes you closer and closer to your own annihilation—spiritual, emotional and finally physical. It destroys the continuity of life, tearing apart all systems—economic, social, environmental and political—that sustain us as human beings. In war, we deform ourselves, our essence. We give up individual conscience—maybe even consciousness—for contagion of the crowd, the rush of patriotism, the belief that we must stand together as a nation in moments of extremity. To make a moral choice, to defy war’s enticement, can in the culture of war be self-destructive. The essence of war is death. Taste enough of war and you come to believe that the Stoics were right: We will, in the end, all consume ourselves in a vast conflagration.

A World War II study determined that, after 60 days of continuous combat, 98 percent of all surviving soldiers will have become psychiatric casualties. A common trait among the remaining 2 percent was a predisposition toward having “aggressive psychopathic personalities.” Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his book “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” notes: “It is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98 percent of all men insane, and the other 2 percent were crazy when they go there.”
-snip-

Odysseus

03-21-2012, 10:15 AM

I don't understand why people are treating this like the crime of the decade, a horrible shocking display that is impossible to understand, but no one seems to consider the effects of the war itself.

Civilians are being killed all the time in these wars. Suddenly it's horrifying because a soldier killed some without the proper permission?

Yes, it is. Because we aren't barbarians. I realize that it flatters you to think of us that way, but we fight to protect non-combatants, not to deliberately put them in harm's way.

Of course most civilian deaths are simply brushed off because they are "collateral damage" in an otherwise "legitimate operation". Do the Afghans care? If a dozen women and children are killed in 'collateral damage' during a strike, do the Afghans think that's totally cool because the foreign occupying military was looking for a bad guy? Come on. When a bomb drops and kills an innocent family, the survivors aren't going to just smile and say "I understand, there were rumors that an insurgent was here". They're more likely to become insurgents themselves.

Collateral damage isn't brushed off. We investigate every incident and people go to jail for failing to prevent civilian casualties.

Why is occupying a foreign country and causing thousands of civilians deaths A-Okay, until some guy decides to go renegade and stop the evil Muslims without clearance? It's a ridiculous mindset that deaths are nothing to think twice about, as long as you follow the "rules" while you do it.

It would be a ridiculous mindset, but it isn't ours. We occupied Afghanistan because they harbored Bin Laden, who used it as a base from which to kill 3,000 Americans.

Something is seriously wrong when a person is willing to take the firmest possible stand against murder, but War is acceptable.

Again, you flatter yourself by denigrating us.

As for the idea that this soldier may have had psychological problems? No shit sherlock. How can you have a decade of continuous war with some people on multiple redeployments without psychological problems. At that point it's not even abnormal psychology it's expected psychology. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote “It is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98 percent of all men insane, and the other 2 percent were crazy when they go there.”

If this were true, then there would be far more incidents like this, but out of over 50,000 troops who have more than four deployments, only one has committed this kind of atrocity. Clearly, this argument doesn't hold water in the face of the facts, but does present you with an opportunity to show us your morally superior stance. You can stop now. We've heard it before and it's not impressive. You have to have a chest before you can thump it.

Odysseus

03-21-2012, 10:38 AM

I found that quote from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in an article by Chris Hedges on this killing rampage. Hedges is a journalist who has been in many warzones.

Chris Hedges? Really? Did you think that we wouldn't remember him? He was the crank who ruined the Rockford College graduation ceremony in 2003 in order to spew a bigoted tirade against the US and Israel, resulting in his being booed off the stage and his subsequent removal from the NY Times. He went from the far-left Times to the farthest-left magazine, The Nation. He has zero credibility on this or any other subject, but by presenting this leftist hack as a war correspondent and omitting his history, you demonstrated why you have zero credibility, too.

DumbAss Tanker

03-21-2012, 11:01 AM

Chris Hedges? Really? Did you think that we wouldn't remember him? He was the crank who ruined the Rockford College graduation ceremony in 2003 in order to spew a bigoted tirade against the US and Israel, resulting in his being booed off the stage and his subsequent removal from the NY Times. He went from the far-left Times to the farthest-left magazine, The Nation. He has zero credibility on this or any other subject, but by presenting this leftist hack as a war correspondent and omitting his history, you demonstrated why you have zero credibility, too.

He sounds like an ideal prospect for TruthOut(TheWindow).

txradioguy

03-21-2012, 11:27 AM

Chris Hedges? Really? Did you think that we wouldn't remember him? He was the crank who ruined the Rockford College graduation ceremony in 2003 in order to spew a bigoted tirade against the US and Israel, resulting in his being booed off the stage and his subsequent removal from the NY Times. He went from the far-left Times to the farthest-left magazine, The Nation. He has zero credibility on this or any other subject, but by presenting this leftist hack as a war correspondent and omitting his history, you demonstrated why you have zero credibility, too.

Leftist hack is being kind. Hedges now plies his hatred at such credible "news" outlets as Alternet...CommonDreams...and AdBusters (the folks behind OWS)...going back to just writing for those terrorist loving sycophants at The Nation would be an upgrade for his credibility.

txradioguy

03-21-2012, 11:28 AM

He sounds like an ideal prospect for TruthOut(TheWindow).

He's got stuff at RawStory...that's just as bad.

Wei Wu Wei

03-21-2012, 06:44 PM

Chris Hedges? Really? Did you think that we wouldn't remember him? He was the crank who ruined the Rockford College graduation ceremony in 2003 in order to spew a bigoted tirade against the US and Israel, resulting in his being booed off the stage and his subsequent removal from the NY Times. He went from the far-left Times to the farthest-left magazine, The Nation. He has zero credibility on this or any other subject, but by presenting this leftist hack as a war correspondent and omitting his history, you demonstrated why you have zero credibility, too.

Calling him a leftist doesn't address a single point he makes.

Rockntractor

03-21-2012, 06:57 PM

Calling him a leftist doesn't address a single point he makes.

He has been discredited as a credible source for anything.http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/niceshoes.gif

Odysseus

03-22-2012, 01:55 AM

Calling him a leftist doesn't address a single point he makes.

Actually, it does, especially since I had previously demolished every point that you made, which were identical to his (and which you haven't been able to discuss). His rant at the commencement ceremony was completely irrational, a superb example of Bush Derangement Syndrome, utterly divorced from reality. He's an extremist loon, and your citation of him speaks volumes about your own worldview, none of it good.

AmPat

03-23-2012, 11:34 AM

I found that quote from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in an article by Chris Hedges on this killing rampage. Hedges is a journalist who has been in many warzones.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/murder_is_not_an_anomoly_in_war_20120319/
If the standards for credibility were this low, you would think liberals would credit the military with the greatest of credibility instead of the predictable scorn and derision. I saw many "journalists" in war zones, I never saw them planning or executing any operations.:rolleyes: